Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, I don't know what to think of a CEO, who publicly puts her authority behind a video suggesting that doing anything off the open coast line of Zürich may be a viable business proposition. (It's a bit like selling a technology driven by the glaciers of New Mexico.)
Almost like someone who would think that they could do something that whole countries haven't been able to do in 60+ years?
SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel
421–430 of 431 posts
Re: SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel
#422Earlier quoted context omitted.
The space shuttle is a human-rated launch vehicle capable of taking 7 people into orbit at a total cost of $445M per launch, or about $65M per seat. When subcontracted to Russia, the charge was about $85M per person. Crew Dragon costs about $55M per person - which is one place my 10% number comes from. Cargo flights are different, and you should also look at total program costs from the deal with NASA. The NASA contr…
The $445M number doesn't count the total cost of the program, which put each Shuttle launch at ~ $1.5 billion. Average cost of a SpaceX resupply is $152 million. That's the total amount the US government pays per mission. You couldn't send the shuttle up with 10% of the cargo capacity and only pay 10% of the cost. The Shuttle was $1.5 billion whether it was 16,000 kg to the ISS or 2,000 kg. Nor could you just use it…
Re: SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel
#423Earlier quoted context omitted.
There aren't 42k Starlink satellites in orbit. It's about 1,500 active satellites versus 600 + ~50 spares - quite comparable.
The plan is for 42k satellites, currently there are still more Starlink satellites than all the other satellites ever launched.
It's pointless to base your assessment on plans if the past showed how quickly they evaporate in light of new developments.
[0] http://spaceref.com/mars/spacex-will-start-going-to-mars-in-...
[1] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/spacex-mo...
Re: SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel
#424Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Don't tell engineers what they can't do. I don't - just a small hint there: Webb fit just fine into an Ariane V fairing...
It does, at $20B cost. A simpler JWST that takes advantage of the large fairing of Starship will cost less and take less time to build
Atlas V has different fairing sizes for different payload types as well.
Sure, a bigger fairing will simplify a space telescope, but you still need to fold it and the bulk of the costs went into developing instruments and the mirror.
There's nothing "simple" about a state-of-the-art scientific instrument. If you want Hubble 2.0, NASA has two of them just lying around for over a decade now; gifted to them by the NRO.
You know how much converting them to useful scientific instruments costs? According to the latest report, it's about $3.2 billion so please give me a break with your "simpler and cheaper because fairing".
Re: SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel
#425Earlier quoted context omitted.
In terms of rocket launches Wikipedia is very good. I certainty don't know about a better source. Maybe SpaceX has a list public somewhere but I would not sure that is as up to date and detailed as Wikipedia.
Real question: Do you think that Space X (PR) employees primarily manage that Wiki page? It seems possible. No, I don't think that is weird or sinister. All of it could probably be verified with an afternoon of YouTube searches! It seems like something that Elon Musk and Gwynne Shotwell would publicly discuss / support. Both are quite intellectually direct in their public media appearances ( less b/s than most corps)…
The information of all that is public and the people who maintain those pages are one it. Maybe they have even atomized it.
Re: SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel
#426Earlier quoted context omitted.
She is not really unsong at all. She is very, very recognized in the industry and everybody that is seriously interested in space travel knows here. She has been on my list of influential woman and given many talks and speeches all over the place. Of course she is not Musk famous, but nobody is. People who hate Musk sometimes try to claim all SpaceX is because of her. That is certainty wrong and she herself would not…
It's most strange to me, and I am not saying this applies to you, that one can have legit concerns about Musk and they are simply dismissed as "hate" by so many. Why some refuse to hold him responsible for his statements is just weird.
When somebody else brings it up, out of genuine believe that she should get more exposure, its easy to throw those groups into the same crowd.
I have very deliberately tried not to do that. Shotwell should get a lot of exposure and a lot of credit.
> Why some refuse to hold him responsible for his statements is just weird.
I don't think most people actually do that. Sure its exists and there are very vocal people out there who do that.
However in general, most people don't agree with some of the things he said or does. On the other hand, I also don't think some of those statements make him the literal devil who should be in prison or even killed is a statement that is often actually made.
Musk is certainty a flawed human, and I have many criticism of him and his companies and his conduct. However, online I am far more often defending him because most of the attacks are not actually well informed and spout the same misinformation in the same over the top way.
Where people just flat out wrote their own history of events and then argue it was the truth.
Hyperloop is a good example. Musk said he would make an idea public, but he wouldn't work on it. That was his position from the beginning. However now when this is brought online people act like he promised Tesla would build a Hyperloop between LA and SF in a year or something like that. Or they just point to companies like 'Hyperloop One' and act as if Musk had anything to do with them.
Re: SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel
#427Earlier quoted context omitted.
The main problem with that idea is that rockets are incredibly loud and noisy. You couldn't launch anywhere close to population centers, where the transportation needs are, and if you need to take a boat to get to a launch platform far at sea you lose a lot of potential. Second problem is that it looks awfully like an ICBM. Lots of countries wouldn't like one of these flying in their direction, which would limit the…
Imagine having to drive for three hours after a one hour flight halfway around the world and complaining that you had to drive three hours to save 16 hours of flying in a jet. That said, I don't see passenger rockets being a thing for quite some time.
Re: SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel
#428Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They will need a lot of CGI graphics of the starship flying through the space, SpaceX in its whole history has shown very, very little CGI. Specially compared to many other traditional rocket companies. > Orbital refueling - no technical details, just cgi images We know for a fact that NASA was very, very impressed with SpaceX work on orbital refueling. In their bid for the moon mission they got a special shout out…
This thing reads like a victim of a Stockholm syndrome. No I have a better example, this reads exactly like defenders of Nikola Semi- truck, before they were busted for having nothing but a shell of a truck rolling down the hill. I could but I am not going to waste time. Sweet dreams. edit: reading back your comments... Is that you Elon? Shouldn't you be working on rockets or something?
When somebody invokes 'Stockholm syndrome' you know he has nothing smart to say.
Re: SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel
#429Earlier quoted context omitted.
>So far, they're more expensive than the Space Shuttle it replaced in NASA contracts do you have a source for this? Wikipedia data in the Launch vehicle estimated payload cost per kg table disagrees with you. By a factor of ~20. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competitio...
The space shuttle is a human-rated launch vehicle capable of taking 7 people into orbit at a total cost of $445M per launch, or about $65M per seat. When subcontracted to Russia, the charge was about $85M per person. Crew Dragon costs about $55M per person - which is one place my 10% number comes from. Cargo flights are different, and you should also look at total program costs from the deal with NASA. The NASA contr…
Re: SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel
#430Earlier quoted context omitted.
*reusable rockets. Rocket launches are associated with very high costs because rockets have historically been one-time use.
Reusable rockets aren't coincidentally many orders of magnitude safer though. They would need to be just to come even with airplanes. It would also involve acceleration forces far beyond anything a normal passenger would accept. I'd be glad to be wrong, but I have yet to see an analysis that actually does the math and doesn't result in something along the lines of "this concept is insane and doomed to fail". Spaceshi…